40th Anniversary of the Moonlanding but was it a hoax?

13

Comments

  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    Moon = small light lump of rock when compared to the earth. Therefore, the force due to gravity would be less. Of course newton could turn out to be wrong, but so far he's done a pretty good job of being right. The fact that it has low force due to gravity means there's little atmosphere to speak of.

    If you want to believe that man never made it to the moon/that the earth is flat/that there was no deep rooted drugs culture in pro cycling. Then that's fine. But at least present some good arguments for it rather than the vague notion that 40 years ago technology was crap!
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Fastlad wrote:
    You don't think i've thought this through properly??? :lol: Look, i just don't believe it. You believe what you like. How do you know there's little gravity or no atmosphere on the moon?? :lol:

    This is NASA's data regarding lunar atmosphere
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Atmosphere

    but you probably don't believe NASA data - do you think they make it up? If so - why isn't it being challenged by the world's scientists?
    Wow! That's some conspiracy going on there! :shock: :D

    You don't even have to go into space to see that the Moon has no atmosphere. i believe this was first deduced in the mid 19th century, and earth based spectographic techniques can be used to detect elements in the extremely thin lunar atmosphere.

    as for gravity - well the moon is much smaller than the earth - so you would expect lower gravity. It's about 1/6. There have been many projects oveer the years that have measured and mapped the Moon's gravitiational field such as KAGUYA. Try googling.
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1066163/kaguya__another_chapter_for_the_lunar_saga/index.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5916/900
    http://www.selene.jaxa.jp/index_e.htm
  • fluff.
    fluff. Posts: 771
    MrChuck wrote:
    Most/all of the 'evidence' against it just shows how little the doubters know/have thought about what they're talking about. So since there's no proof that we didn't go to the moon, I guess all the deniers are left with is an argument that there's no proof that we did go.


    Not been involved in this, so apologies if it's been mentioned : but there is proof we did go, the resolution of the latest images of the surface means the the lander and buggy are now visible.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8157368.stm
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    fluff. wrote:
    MrChuck wrote:
    Most/all of the 'evidence' against it just shows how little the doubters know/have thought about what they're talking about. So since there's no proof that we didn't go to the moon, I guess all the deniers are left with is an argument that there's no proof that we did go.


    Not been involved in this, so apologies if it's been mentioned : but there is proof we did go, the resolution of the latest images of the surface means the the lander and buggy are now visible.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8157368.stm

    Definitely fake eh Fastlad? The conspiracy continues....



    :lol::lol::lol:
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    ....And where were those pictures taken? Was the "spacecraft" sitting on the tarmac on earth at the time??? WTF!! Those pics are really conclusive, very clear!!

    ....Bikeradar.......we have a problem!!!!! :lol:
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    Science fiction fan are we? :lol::lol::lol: :roll:
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Fastlad wrote:
    ....And where were those pictures taken? Was the "spacecraft" sitting on the tarmac on earth at the time??? WTF!! Those pics are really conclusive, very clear!!

    ....Bikeradar.......we have a problem!!!!! :lol:

    Do you take a lot of drugs?


    i've got to admit i don;t understand - do you believe that scientists exist?

    do you believe we've sent anything into space?

    do you believe the earth is round?

    please state your level of scepticism.

    I would suggest that maybe you're emulating Descartes in his belief that nothing exists outside his own mind. In which case, I don;t exist either so why are arguing with me?
    Fastlad wrote:
    Science fiction fan are we? :lol::lol::lol: :roll:
    with the level of conspiracy you seem to be implying I think you must be. I prefer science fact.
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    The truth is out there!! :lol: Partial to a wee smoke are we? Watch out for that stuff in those funny cigs
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Fastlad wrote:
    The truth is out there!! :lol: Partial to a wee smoke are we? Watch out for that stuff in those funny cigs

    This I really don;t understand. You're the one coming up with the bizarre theories. :?
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    Yep, the earth is round, i have a map of the world on a globe in my room.

    I do believe that they have indeed sent things into space, i have satellite T.V.

    Someone on the moon? Hmmm....no :wink:
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Fastlad wrote:
    Yep, the earth is round, i have a map of the world on a globe in my room.

    I do believe that they have indeed sent things into space, i have satellite T.V.

    Someone on the moon? Hmmm....no :wink:

    OK - but the only way that someone can maintain that stance is by ignoring the evidence like you do. In a way - you help prove our case. :P

    So then - do you accept the data about the lunar gravity and atmosphere? None of this is dependent on the moon landings.
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    Sorry, i can't take you seriously with a picture of action man as your avatar! Why don't you get a space suit on him and see if you can launch him into orbit!!! 8) I'm out of here! :wink:
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    Fastlad wrote:
    Sorry, i can't take you seriously with a picture of action man as your avatar! Why don't you get a space suit on him and see if you can launch him into orbit!!! 8) I'm out of here! :wink:

    How very dare you - I used to be a plastic penguin!!
  • on the road
    on the road Posts: 5,631
    I'm curious to know what it will take for the doubters be convinced they did actually go to the moon?

    Come on, there's a lot of doubters on here, what do you want as proof?
  • softlad
    softlad Posts: 3,513
    on the road wrote:
    I'm curious to know what it will take for the doubters be convinced they did actually go to the moon?

    Come on, there's a lot of doubters on here, what do you want as proof?

    as proof, I would like to see a full, honest and frank interview with Neil Armstrong in which he makes it categorically clear that he walked on the moon and confirms there was no cover up....

    but I won't hold my breath....
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    softlad wrote:
    on the road wrote:
    I'm curious to know what it will take for the doubters be convinced they did actually go to the moon?

    Come on, there's a lot of doubters on here, what do you want as proof?

    as proof, I would like to see a full, honest and frank interview with Neil Armstrong in which he makes it categorically clear that he walked on the moon and confirms there was no cover up....

    but I won't hold my breath....

    What if Neil is part of the "cover up"? Why should you believe him?
    I vote for water boarding Buzz Aldren. That will make him "confess". :wink:
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    I think we should start sending the sceptics to the moon starting with Fastlad.

    We should use 1969 technology.

    It should be televised.

    I reckon the sceptics would soon change their views. :D
  • softlad
    softlad Posts: 3,513
    Porgy wrote:

    I reckon the sceptics would soon change their views. :D

    I'll change my views when Armstrong changes his. (Neil, that is, not Lance..) At the moment, you have a situation where the 'first man on the moon' speak in highly ambiguous terms about his being there - you happy with that Porgy..??
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    softlad wrote:
    Porgy wrote:

    I reckon the sceptics would soon change their views. :D

    I'll change my views when Armstrong changes his. (Neil, that is, not Lance..)

    What are Armstrongs views? Neil that is.
  • softlad
    softlad Posts: 3,513
    dennisn wrote:
    What are Armstrongs views? Neil that is.

    good question. you would think that his views would be both clear and widely known - but they are not. Even getting the guy to talk at all would be a major achievement...
  • Percy Veere
    Percy Veere Posts: 53
    There seem to a few anomolies that do require explanation, but as previous posters imply (with ever increasing vitreol), NASA and the astronauts themselves seem unable or unwilling to answer.

    I'm not in a position to say whether they did or dod not go, however, the main issues seem to be.

    1 - The flag appears to flutter when there is no atmosphere.
    2 - There is no blast crater under the lander, when it would have been on full throttle to slow the descent.
    3 - All 3 astronaughts are very vague about actual recollections. In the post flight interview then said they could not even remember seeing any stars ! All 3 also resigned immediately after the mission. Armstrong has NEVER given an interview about it. Does he EVER look happy when people speak about it.
    4 - In reply to why the Russians did not say anything, NASA had launched a satellite a year before the mission to deliberate broadcast data back to the earth to simulate what would come from the Apollo rocket and lunar craft.
    5 - On some of the recorded communications, when the astronaughts as NASA questions, NASA responds immediately, not the 1.5 seconds it would take for the signal to reach earth.

    There are a few other questions, but these seem to be the main ones. In addition to how the astronaughts were protected from the deadly radiation that exists between earth and the moon.

    Interesting debate though....
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    Spy probe images Apollo landing sites
    New Scientist wrote:
    Those who suspect the Apollo lunar landings were faked may have trouble arguing with new orbital images of hardware and tracks left in the lunar dust by Apollo astronauts in the 1960s and '70s. ...
    dn17486-1_300.jpg
    Gallery
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    Nice one Percy. The radiation must surely be the biggie? I remember a proffessor dude speaking of how it would have been/be impossible to survive it with a "suit" on :lol:

    Also!!! because they're were so few men allegedly involved with the landing...it would be easier to contain their BS stories!

    The only thing that could change my mind??? Modern, up to date, state of the art images and close ups of the flag and any other remnants on the surface.
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    Crapaud wrote:
    Spy probe images Apollo landing sites
    New Scientist wrote:
    Those who suspect the Apollo lunar landings were faked may have trouble arguing with new orbital images of hardware and tracks left in the lunar dust by Apollo astronauts in the 1960s and '70s. ...
    dn17486-1_300.jpg
    Gallery

    Please excuse my ignorance but what exactly are we looking at there?
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    Fastlad wrote:
    Crapaud wrote:
    Spy probe images Apollo landing sites
    New Scientist wrote:
    Those who suspect the Apollo lunar landings were faked may have trouble arguing with new orbital images of hardware and tracks left in the lunar dust by Apollo astronauts in the 1960s and '70s. ...
    dn17486-1_300.jpg
    Gallery

    Please excuse my ignorance but what exactly are we looking at there?
    Read the article, look at the gallery. :roll:
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    Oh right, that's a great picture, the shadow is so convincing..not! So, their pictures are going to get better? I'm really, really surprised that they haven't been back (ha ha) in recent years to validate the landings!! Not even the russians ffs!! Why not? Apparently the chinese are planning to go. The world and me awaits proof!
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    So what are your reasons for not believing the moon landings happened, Fastlad - go into some detail (or STFU).
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    As a fellow Glaswegian!!!! Here's my reasons.....Radiation, 19 FECKIN 69 technology, cold war propaganda. Basically, i believe it's a load of p!sh. A story of how men went 250,000 miles up into the atmosphere 40!!! years ago (a feat that is unsurpassed today) AND landed on the moon?? GET FECKIN REAL!! I don't buy it!!! Yet.
  • Porgy
    Porgy Posts: 4,525
    edited July 2009
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#SELENE_photographs

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_missions_tracked_by_independent_parties

    scroll down to the Apollo related stuff:
    http://www.eclipsetours.com/sat/debris.html

    independent evidence of moon landing

    <wanted to post more but poor web connection prevents>
  • Fastlad
    Fastlad Posts: 908
    edited July 2009
    As Mulder said to Scully...

Categories